tv Washington Journal CSPAN April 17, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
a discussion on family leave and pregnancy discrimination. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on face can twitter. ♪ host: congress has left town for the weekend. lots of news in its wake. the house yesterday passed a repeal of the estate tax. a major pacific trade deal was announced yesterday. not everybody is happy. harry reid in the senate says it republican leaders do not act soon he will try to force a vote on loretta lynch for attorney general. as for the pilot of the gyrocopter there is a mix of curiosity and outrage after the pilot flew under the radar onto
the capitol grounds. we thought we would give you a chance to weigh in on your top stories. what matters most to you based on everything going on in washington this week? republicans, call 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. if not by phone, social media. #cspanwj on twitter. post a comment on facebook or send an e-mail to email@example.com. here's a sampling of what is making news. we look forward to hearing from you. "the wall street journal" talks about the trade bill. "a deal reached thursday would pave the way for the president to conclude a trade agreement with rare republican help. the measure is triggering a fight within the democratic party opposed to liberalizing
trade." "the bill introduced thursday is a compromise between republicans and democrats on the finance committee and is meant to ease passage of the transpacific partnership with japan, canada and vietnam that the white house sees as central to the president's economic legacy. the president will have to persuade a number in his own party to join a large majority of republicans supporting the so-called fast-track legislation. in recent weeks, officials feared they might have the support of fewer than a dozen house democrats." that is "the wall street journal," the house passed the estate tax repeal despite a threat of a veto from president obama yesterday. it is a politically volatile issue that affects a few inheritances. republicans refer to it as a death tax, saying it prevents
small business owners and family farmers from passing businesses onto their heirs. democrats say repealing the tax is a giveaway to the rich.says the only families that pay it has many millions in assets. they point out that the bill goes on to the senate, or democrats appear to have enough votes to block it. in "the new york times," electronic cigarettes. "teenagers picking up e-cigarettes as old-school smoking declines." e-cigarettes have arrived in the life of the american teenager, writes the story. "use of devices among middle and high school students tripled from 2013-2014, according to federal data released thursday. bringing the share of high school students who use them to 13%, more than the number who smoke traditional cigarettes." "usa today," "soldiers hate their jobs" is the deadline. 52% pessimistic about the
future. more than half of about 770,000 soldiers are pessimistic about their future in the military and nearly as many are unhappy in jobs. despite a sixth year, $287 million campaign to make troops more resilient. this is from findings according to "usa today." a story in "the washington post" about jeb bush. continuing his sharp criticism of the president on foreign policy. the headline says he is not using his post" about jeb brother's -- not ducking his brother's legacy. "the u.s. won't be on speaking terms with cuba and will partner with israel." "he will tighten sanctions on iran and urged nato to deploy more troops in eastern europe. he will order the military to write out "barbarians and evildoers" around the globe. far from playing down the views
once expressed by his brother george w. bush jeb bush is embracing and emphasizing them." a little sampling from the pieces out in the papers today. based on a busy weekend washington d.c. lots more action next week that we will talk to a reporter about. a piece of tape from senator bob corker had it before and relations committee. he talks about this bipartisan arrangement, the deal that emerged on the bill regarding iran. [video clip] senator corker: what we have is a bill that forces the administration before they are able to lift the sanctions that we collectively put in place that brought them to the table it forces the administration to bring to us every detail if there happens to be a final agreement. every detail. we have left time frames in here
and we have worked with the parliamentarian, we have worked with the house to make sure the procedures are appropriate. we'll have a colloquy in a minute to further confirm that. what this does, it means that sanctions that have been put in place by the senate and by the house cannot be lifted, cannot be lifted without the administration bringing to us. every detail of the deal. then the clock will start. there will be eight period -- a period of time congress will debate and decide whether they want to move ahead with approval or disapproval. during that time, no congressional mandated sanctions can be. lifted senator host: -- host: senator corker writes an op-ed, "we have worked hard to
be bipartisan." "allowing the administration to implement any final agreement as it has existed while assessing iranian compliance." it is clear, he writes, that iran and the u.s. had different views regarding the lifting of the sanctions on iran. we must remain clear eyed regarding iran's resistance to concession long history of covert nuclear weapons-related activity support of terrorism and the role in destabilizing the region. now is the time to tie for the relief of sanctions to a formal process for congress to assess. in "the washington post" by senator bob corker who heads foreign relations in the senate. in mississippi, larry.
what meant most to you? caller: good morning. once again, republicans. they are in big business and they constantly attacked the middle class and the poor. host: housew so? caller: the inheritance tax. for loretta lynch, i agree with the fellow from illinois. so? caller:he's being proven right. they are putting loretta lynch back on the bus. have a nice day. host: we will talk about the lynch nomination in fewer than 10 minutes. i wanted to get a look at that and a look ahead because the nomination is installed in the senate -- is stalled. the senate moving to revisit a trafficking bill. failures reopened talks on a
stalled bill to combat human trafficking. whliehile pickering intensified over the statements that have ensnared the nomination of loretta lynch. senator cornyn of texas who introduced the trafficking bill said he was hopeful his work would help democrats move past the protracted debate about the ones bipartisan bill. "i would say we are seriously talking for the first time that we are not there yet." we were waiting for votes to take place yesterday. then abruptly, thing stopped moving forward. we are looking for more information on when that will come to the floor. john from richmond, virginia, independent. what is your top story? caller: i just wanted to comment . i believe it was marco rubio who said the other day that things like all he ever sees is democrats attacking and they have no idea, stuff like that. i mean seriously.
it is like every single thing a republican says is a projection about what they do. if everyone is ever watching fox news or listening to rush limbaugh or any online commentary, republicans are like rabid dogs every time they speak about anything. they cannot get their way when they are saying something, they attack people. they cannot come up with ideas they lie and they believe everything they say. no wonder people cannot have a discussion. host: let me repeat the phone numbers to get some other folks to weigh in. republicans, call 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. mike lillis, congressional reporter for "the hill." guest: good morning.
host: why don't you pick up where we left off on the human trafficking bill. it came to an abrupt end in the senate. what is the bill about and where is it now? guest: it came to an abrupt end. the plan to go yesterday was canceled. a lot of people think that is good and means there are talks going on behind closed doors that are making progress. i think it is a postponement and we are likely to see it come up next week. mitch mcconnell said last night he is hopeful that they can do that make some progress over the weekend and iron out the sticking points. it's a bill sponsored by john cornyn, a texas republican. it creates a fund based on criminal fines that benefits victims of human trafficking. it's not a controversial concept. it passed easily through the house. when it got to the senate the republicans attached some abortion language to it,
antiabortion language. saying that none of the funds could be used for abortion services. it was funny, democrats said they had not seen that provision when they passed it through the committee. when they got to the floor they said this is an expansion of the existing federal ban on federal funding for abortion services and we are not going to qualify it -- to codify. get it out of there or we will not pass it on the floor. that is where we have been to the last six weeks. host: take us to iran. we have been hearing from senator corker about the bipartisanship in the market. when is the iran legislation coming to the senate floor and remind us about what it does. guest: the timing is going to depend on the human trafficking bill. the republicans want to pass that first and they are holding up the nomination of loretta lynch for attorney general based on the human trafficking bill. then the iran language would come third in that sequence.
it's a, congress has always wanted to have a louder voice in these negotiations. negotiations with iran have been going on for years. as we got to the endit's a, congress has always and it looks like they were going to cut a deal there were a lot of lawmakers in both houses and parties who wanted to take a look at it. there was concerns especially the government in israel, they say this is the first steps to an arms race and they think this will not do enough to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. congress says we need to have a say. the initial bill was sponsored by bob corker a before and relations committee. democrats were balking at that, especially house democrats. looked like they might be able to sustain a veto that was promised by obama. so they tweaked it and now it is
a bipartisan, more bipartisan bill. the timing on it is going to depend on what happens in the senate next week. you look for that to come to the floor before the end of the month. host: speaking of timing, harry reid is not a happy person right now regarding loretta lynch. here is a tweet he sent, "i want everyone to know that loretta lynch's nomination will not remain in purgatory for effort." he says he will try to force a vote. what might he try to do and when? guest: he is the minority but there are procedural steps he can take. they are rarely used but he can try to force a vote, which would put, he thinks, republicans in a tough spot politically. loretta lynch is not a controversial figure. she is expected to pass through the chamber pretty quickly once she gets there. she would be the first
african-american woman to hold the post. there are political considerations there. harry reid thinks it would put republicans in a tough spot if he forced the vote. what happened yesterday and it sounds like the talks are progressing behind closed doors. you heard a number of people on both sides of the aisle, debbie s stepanabenow has been pushing for this. she says there is a possibility of reaching an agreement of the weekend. harry reid is pressing but i think he will back off, he does this a lot. it is a two-track debate things going on behind closed doors and that is where progress is happening and then there is politicking on the chamber floor and in the media and that is where the leaders get involved in all the threat come up. i think that is a sign that things might actually get done. host: on the house side, what message did the house send this
week? what market regarding all the tax bills. here's a headline about the estate tax. what do they actually accomplish here? guest: these are very partisan bills. i misunderstood your question. this is nothing new. the estate tax is something the republicans have been pushing for for many years. it is a partisan bill, almost along party lines. it will not go anywhere, it probably will not pass the senate and obama would certainly be doubted. -- certainly veto it. these are messages about budget and the economy and all kinds of things setting the stage for 2016 and the presidential election. nothing new there and nothing really to see. it is just and messaging bill. it will die. host: before we let you know,
i've got to ask you about the pilot of the gyrocopter. this headline in "the new york times" says there is a mix of curiosity and outrage over what happened at the capitol. what is the fallout? guest: it had yet to be seen. it was funny yesterday, we were asking everybody and everybody is just kind of scratching their head. the question we heard over and over is how could this happen? 14 years after 9/11, this is restricted airspace. how could a guy fly in for a couple hours and land on the capitol grounds? nobody had a good answer. jeh johnson the secretary of homeland security, said, he suggested the guy literally was flying so low he was under the radar and they did not detect him. they did not have the technology to see a guy coming back low. even though he had forecasted was coming and the press new he was coming. the press did not seem to. so many -- the police did not
seem to. so many agencies involved, secret service, capitol police, faa, d.c. police, they will do an investigation. i do not think you will see congress do anything until that happens. they want to see the details like everybody else. the question is how did it happen and how can we prevent it from happening again? there is fear. host: mike liles, congressional reporter from&." thank you for your insight. guest: thanks for having me. host: read thehill.com for mike's work. a tweet about loretta lynch. "it is about time that harry reid is showing some aggression in dealing with these republican obstructions over the last six years. go harry go." doug is calling from staten island. what is on your mind? caller: hello?
host: you are on the air. caller: the biggest story, you would not know it if you listened to the main networks, cbs, abc, nbc, fox, is the tpp -- the trade agreement in the works right now. it should be called the southern hemisphere-agent free-trade agreement. southern hemisphere asian free trade agreement. it involves mostly asian countries. if you look at those initials, instead of tpp it should be called the shafta after cafta and fnafta. it has 24 sections and it. only 5 are related to trade. 19 are we do not know what intellectual property,
the pharmaceuticals being able to charge what they want. none of the networks are talking about it because it is suicide for the anchors. they are owned by major conglomerates that have other business that are going to the affected by this. none of the congress people have been involved in this. there have been 600 lobbyists and ceos and cfos and cfos of companies. there are a couple environmental groups that have had some inkling of it but not the whole agreement. one congressman from florida went in to see the agreement. he was told he could look at a certain section and he could not take note or bring any equipment or a recorder. he could not discuss it with anyone in his staff after wards. he was advised strongly not to discuss it on the air. this is the agreement supposed to be run by congress. it is a trade agreement. the commerce clause says congress does it.
what they are saying is that every president has had this agreement. it have only been five occasions since nixon when this has been allowed. mostly years when the president went to the agreements, congress turned them down. this agreement, if it goes through, will involve allowing about 9000 companies to become relegated to the status of a nation. they can actually sue us if a court that is run by trade representatives and trade lawyers, speaking trade law. they do a revolving door. sometimes they represent the company and sometimes they act as the judge in these cases. host: let me let you go. there's a lot written about it, despite what you said about broadcasters. we will be talking about this later. here is one of the headlines in "the new york times."
"congress clears a path to the fast deal on pacific trade." "gop allied with the president against his own party. congressional leaders agreed on legislation to give it president special authority to finish negotiations on one of the world's largest trade accords. a rare battle that aluigns the president against democrats. what is sure to be one of the toughest fights in mr. obama's last 19 months. it heralds a divisive fight within the democratic party, one that could spill into the 2016 campaign. with committee votes planed next week, liberal senators like sherrod brown are demanding'to know hillary clinton's position on the bill. trade unions environmentalists and latino organizations, potent democratic constituencies, also quickly lined up in opposition, arguing that passed trade pacts
failed to deliver on their promise and the latest effort would harm american workers. they point out the deal was struck by orrin hatch of utah ron wyden, the ranking member on finance, paul ryan, a republican of wisconsin who chairs the ways and means committee." a couple tastes and we will dig into this more in the days ahead. ken, lancaster, south carolina. thank you for waiting. independent caller. caller: i want to talk about hillary clinton and immigration. please give me a little time like you did the other gentlemen. host: ok. caller: you there. host: we are listening. caller: since president obama has been in office, the only thing he has been talking about is immigration. unemployment among blacks is twice as much as whites and illegal immigrants. 90,000 work visas a month he is giving to illegals.
i do not know why blacks are supporting this deal hillary clinton, a senator from new york, voted for the iraq war. she never put major legislation and she proposed that. as secretary of state, she flew around the country and never did nothing. and stayed with a man -- all the women say she is strong. staying with a man that cheated on her numerous times. i don't know everyone is so up and hands on hillary clinton. i would rather vote for a republican. host: we got to move on to idaho, a republican caller. caller: good morning. thank you. the reason i was calling as a republican, i know with great interest. certainly we recognize as republicans that we have to expand the party. we cannot be a party of old white men anymore, as i am getting to be. to that end it is fascinating
and in many ways very good that people like michael rubio -- marco rubio, rand paul are addressing the new generation kind of thing. much like bill clinton did 20, 23 years ago. host: watch today and tomorrow, we will be in new hampshire for their big summit they are having today and tomorrow. caller: absolutely and with great interest. my daughter is a burgeoning libertarian and-or republican. we will both watch it. host: that programming, new hampshire republican party their first in the nation's leadership summit. we are up at about 12:15 p.m. eastern today with a series of speeches. chris christie of new jersey marco rubio of florida and the former texas governor rick perry, jeb bush.
lots of folks will be there. we pick it up at 10:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow. rand paul, ted cruz, lindsey graham, scott walker, john kasich, mike huckabee. today and tomorrow on c-span. you can watch it all live. tony, maryland, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. host: what is on your mind? caller: the biggest story is three things. one, my mother turns 73 years old yesterday. i love you mom. her name is joanne. today is my father's birthday. happy birthday pop you turn 75 today, god bless. the third thing is with c-span. since there are quite a few issues i want to focus on this. c-span, when you guys have tests
on especially legislators-- guests on, especially legislators and congress numbers, stop asking them questions. you ask too many questions and they answer too long. the answers are too lengthy. we want the callers to talk to these people. they take too long answering. by the time the callers that a chance, they have very little time. host: that is really great insight. thank you for sharing. i will keep in mind and i imagine my colleagues will as well. district heights, maryland. hillary clinton a couple times in the program so far. we look at the week back, here's the former secretary of state, former senator, and former first lady at kirkwood community college in iowa talking about the 4 big areas she wants to champion for americans.
[video clip] hillary clinton: i want to be the champion who goes to bat for americans in 4 big areas that i think we have to take on. there are those who do not agree with what i think we should be doing. and they are pretty powerful forces. we need to build the economy of tomorrow, not yesterday. we need to strengthen families and communities because that is where it all starts. we need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all. even if that takes a constitutional amendment. and we need to protect our country from the threats that we see and the ones that are on the horizon. host: there is this, martin o'malley, former governor of maryland who was toying with the possibility of running for president himself, he spoke at hartford yesterday. here is the headline. "martin o'malley goes after
hillary for leading by polls not principles." accusing her of changing policy positions based on polls rather than her convictions. the first time the prospective democratic presidential candidate has attacked clinton since she announced her presidency bid sunday. "i am glad secretary clinton has come around to the right position on these issues, " said o'malley "i believe we are best as a party when we lead with principles and not according to polls." "leadership is about making the best decision. sometimes it becomes entirely popular." is an "huffington post." michael, redwood city, california, independent caller. caller: good morning. who am i speaking to. i have been watching c-span what is your name. host: my name is paul.
what would you like to ask or say? caller: well, i just saw hillary clinton, i would glad to talk to her. i am interested, in 1967i was in air rescue in libya. that was my first base. i was there when the king was in power. it was quite an experience. i had never been to that part of the world. i also was there when the war was going on in libya in 1967, i think it was. and i was there during the evacuation. airlifting the oil field workers and the military out of their. i was proud to be a crew chief
after coming out of tech school and briefly was supervised by an ex sergeant. [indiscernible] shall we say would fly my aircraft, 0990-c130. he would take that plane constantly to fly. i would never tell him anything about the crew. they would fly out and they would sit and break by the window. host: let me ask, why do you bring this up? caller: i guess i got a tangent there, sorry. i think as far as iran and
libya, i'd like to know what hillary was doing when she was in the office there. they had the attack on the embassy. why don't we fly over there over to iran and libya just load up some big airplane, fly at high enough. load them with bowling balls -- thank you host: for calling. issues of war. in "the hill," the cost of the isis war is past $2 billion. figures based on the pentagon's update from last month. it passed the $1 billion mark in december. in "the hill." donna in missouri, republican caller. hi, donna.
caller:hi. i was listening to the man prior to having. or was it a woman. i agree with a lot of what he was saying. i think he was the governor talking regarding hillary clinton. and i agree with a lot of what he was saying. rick perry or mike huckabee would be good ones. and come up they have belief systems. and i know there are a lot of people globally, christians are getting persecuted all of the world, more and more. and there is literally only 14% that say they do not believe in god. but yet we have had prayer taken
out of the school years ago by one woman. there is all this stuff about gay marriage, but it says in the bible it is an abomination. and aborting babies that are full-fledged babies. i just, you know, i have a lot of respect for jay sekulow and conservative women of america and groups that are trying to fight this. host: thank you for weighing in. out of "the washington times," "rnc touts record. 11 lindo are hot -- "rnc touts record $11 million
haul." grants previous -- reince priebus said it was the biggest ever. ted cruz raised for million dollars. here's a little bit of marco rubio in miami. [video clip] marco rubio: yesterday is over. [cheer and applause] we are never going back. we americans are proud of our history but our country has always been about the future. now is the opportunity to offer the greatest chapter in the amazing story of america. we cannot do that by going back to the leaders and the ideas of the past. we must change the decisions we are making my changing the people who are making them. [cheers and applause]
and so that is why tonight grounded by the lessons of our history, but inspired by the promise of our future, i announce my candidacy for presidency of the united states. [cheers and applause] [crowd chanting] >> marco! host: announcing he is running for president. a tweet, "calling rubio the new generation while he supports policies on cuba, iran and trickle-down is laughable." patricia in washington, d.c. what is on your mind? caller: thanks for taking my
call. the first comment, i have a couple, is about the limit alleged nomination. -- the loretta lynch nomination. why does that have to be tied? she cannot get a vote until they get a bill through on human trafficking connected to abortion has abortion legislation in it. host: what is your take on it? here is a headline on it. what's your take? caller: she has nothing to do. her vote should have nothing to do with legislation trying to get past that is going to benefit the rest of the country and secondly, when i was watching "the hill," the next channel up, capitol hill hearings. back when they had cpac.
all the republicans came saying repeal everything basically that obama has done. what has he done, outside of being elected by the majority of the people, that just takes off the republicans? i don't know. it ticks the republicans off. thirdly, i agree that big money should be out of politics. one day you see on the news, you know, a republican candidate will announce he's president. the next day, he's got millions of dollars backing him. that is not coming from the people. that is coming from, i guess they call it dark water money people. the rich people, you know? that is just so unfair against the average american. host: that was patricia in d.c.
indiana, an independent caller. caller: hausa going? host: what's on your mind? caller: i hope you are enjoying washington d.c. thank you to c-span. you are one of my favorite networks. host: we appreciate that and we appreciate you taking part in the program. caller: my comment is basically i am 29 years old. i am really disheartened to see a potential hillary clinton versus jeb bush 2016 presidential ticket. host: how come? caller: 29 years old says the time i was a toddler and i would watch tv and see presidents on tv, it was either bush or clinton, you know, or what have you. now -- clinton had already gone to the white house and as
secretary of state. i don't know if a vote of the other c-span viewers are aware of the -- james comey and all of the law enforcement and intelligence directors, they were all on president obama's cabinet, the same people on president bush's cabinet. host: back to your point, when you think of the name bush or clinton, what do you think about? especially at the age of 29. caller: more of the same. are we going to get a democratic woman like hillary clinton and then a republican majority in congress.
i just see more traffic jams, so to speak. host: as an independent, you can see yourself going in any direction. is that true? caller: i can see myself going for pretty much any candidate other than clinton or bush. host: is there any more two -- is there a name or two that has your interest? caller: i would not mind seeing michelle obama run. i would not mind seeing joe arp aio, a sheriff in arizona run. i'm an independent conservative, i am pretty much straight down the middle. if it is hillary clinton versus jeb bush, i probably won't even vote. host: larry from indiana, thank you for talking to us. misty from texas, and independent as well.
caller: hello. host: what matters to you most out of washington this week? caller: well, i would really like to know why these people are not being prosecuted. obama, number one, with everything that has gone on. clinton, hillary, with benghazi. all the coverups from fast and furious on down. the irs. i don't understand how our government got so out of control . it is all out of control. whether you are a republican or democrat. there should be a time limit on these people in the house and the senate in congress. we need new faces. host: has the oldest seen this or are you just seeing a turn more recently in terms of the situation in town? -- have you always seen this or
are you just seeing a turn more recently in terms of the situation of town? caller: i have been watching glenn beck forever. i agree with glenn beck. but i also think the american people are suffering. are you just seeing a turn more recently in terms of the situation of town? caller:the christians are suffering. this is just -- this is world war iii. if people have not noticed, it has been going on for 10 or 20 years. i have been paying attention and it has gotten worse. host: thanks for sharing your thoughts. the couple more calls the stop from cleveland, democrat. caller: how're are you doing? i'm a vietnam veteran. i've had trouble with the v.a. they say i owe the v.a. $99,000. they have devastated me, i had a heart attack. they accused me of having all payments. i tried to get help and no one is helping me.
other people are going through the same thing. they have to pay with a pension they received. i received this pension, i was entitled to this pension but then they say there's a payment. there was raises from president bush and increasing cost of living and all this. [indiscernible] disability pension, collecting disability and now they are saying i owe $99,000 and they are taking my social security. they call me a bum. it is awful. it is horrible for veterans. they took away everything i am. i am a proud american and a proud veteran. these people, i do not know what is wrong with them. i have not went to a trial or hearing, they did this behind closed doors at a pension board. it was by mail or by letter so i do not know what to do. seems like i cannot go
nowhere. all the doors have been shut. host: we appreciate you sharing your situation with us. the last call is from north carolina. richard on the republican line. hi richard. caller: good morning. my beef is, i heard this past week they were talking about raising the social security retirement to 69. and they want to do reform with social security because it is going broke. well, we paid into it. the government was supposed to invest the money and take care of it for us but instead they robbed it. they are always talking about social security that we paid into. the welfare system, nobody has ever paid into it. but i do not hear any reform coming from the government to reform welfare because it is buying in boats.
give them more, buy their votes. we need welfare reform, not social security reform. we need government reform. the people need to start voting against these crooks that are up there. thank you. host: thanks for calling. thanks to everyone who called. we'll take a short timeout. coming up next, did you know that in some cases, food companies can add new ingredients without fda safety reviews? chris young and erin quinn will join us from the center for public integrity. we will talk about a piece they have written to explain the situation. later, a roundtable on issues facing working women. veronique de rugy from george mason university and vicki shabo of the national partnership for women and families. that is later in the program. and all weekend, our cities tour
will take booktv in american history tv on the road as we visit one of the oldest cities in the country, saint augustine, florida. here's the mayor talking about the city's civil rights history. nancy schaefer: saint augustine is in northeast florida about 60 miles south of jacksonville on the intercoastal waterway and the st. johns river. it is the oldest continuously occupied european settlement in north america. 1565 is when pedro menendez de a velas landed here. before that there were indians. we have a broad history and a rich and deep civil rights history. the city was a little-known but important part of the civil rights movement. i remember the photograph on the front of the washington post, it was the picture of the hotel
owner of the motor lodge pouring acid into a pool where a black woman and white man were swimming. it was illegal. it was a very difficult time for the city, as it was for many cities. dr. king was here, andrew young was here. there were rabbis who came to support the civil rights movement who were put in jail. there are many people here who remember that time who lived through it. so it was a very as it was everywhere, a difficult time for america. and a difficult time for all of us. >> "washington journal" continues.
host: joining us are two reporters from the center for public integrity. chris young and erin quinn. thank you for being here. first-time guests, both of the. the topic is what the fda does and does not know about what is in our food. they have written a piece at the center for public integrity about all of this. quite a lengthy piece so we are going to learn a lot in the next 45 minutes but i wanted to start with a photo from the piece. a tragic story. here's a boy named miles, he is 11 years old. he suffered a fatal allergic reaction after he ate basically a turkey burger. erin quinn, explained the story. what happened. guest: miles was an 11-year-old boy who lived in california. the story is about how he was eating a turkey burger. it has an ingredient in it called micro-protein which is a
meat alternative. it is a food additive. he suffered an allergic reaction. he had had an allergic reaction and algae to -- an allergy to mold. his mother was unaware of what the ingredients were in the turkey burger. she says it was mislabeled. he began to suffer an allergic reaction. he could not believe and eventually died of anaphylactic shock the day after he ate the burger. host: how did it actually happen, and the context of your piece and what we are talking about here -- food safety issues? guest: micro protein, the ingredient the family is saying led to their family's death -- their son's death is a food additive declared safe a couple years ago. it has been on the market a
couple years. they did a declaration of safety to the food and drug administration. the fda okeayed it but did not issue approval because of the process. since the mother was unaware of what it is really made of. host: broadened this out, what is the fda's responsibility? what are they responsible for? guest: most people assume the fda is making sure every food ingredient that goes into our food is safe. but the fact is that that is actually not true. the bottom line is that the fda often has no idea what ingredients food companies are adding to our foods. it is not that these companies are doing anything illegal. there is a loophole in a 57-year-old law that makes this
possible. host: what does this mean for all of us? it means -- guest: it means we are short information about how safe our food supply is. there are an estimated 1000, that is conservative, 1000 ingredients in our food that the public does not know exists and even the fda does not know exists. host: i put the phone numbers on the screen for our guests. chris young and erin quinn of the center for public integrity talking about food quality issues. they'll be happy to take your calls, questions and comments. i want to put some context out there. this is from their piece. "in the past five decades the number of food additives have skyrocketed from about 800 to more than 10,000. added to everything from date good and for serials to energy bars and -- baked goods and
cereals to energy bars. the approval system has slowed to a crawl, manufacturers have turned to a to energy bars. the approval system loophole." explain what that is. guest: basically a process for which food additives can make it to the market. that came about in 1958 when the first law was passed to regulate food additives. the last set up two paths to markets. a company wishing to market an ingredient could go through a full review process three fda the ingredient would be submitted to extensive testing and review for safety. at the end, the fda would hopefully issue a formal approval and stand behind that approval and say we recognize this as safe. with the generally recognized as
safe path, that was set up by congress for companies to bring to market ingredients that were commonly used and obviously safe. it was meant for the fda to not be bogged down to approve things like olive oil or vinegar or table saw. companies today use that loophole far more often than going through the food additive review process. they can determine something is generally recognized as safe on their own with their own scientists are hired scientists and consultants and make a declaration. and then decide whether or not to notify the fda about safety decision. the fda, they have a chance to agree with the company but they do not make a formal approval of anything. the fda does not really stand behind the company's decision. it is up to the company. host: chris young, tell us more. guest: what she was saying about the idea that the fda does not
stand by these decisions starting in 1997 the fda proposed rules that basically laid out guidelines for industry on what they can do if they wanted to seek the fda's so-called approval. they are not actually approving or affirming the safety of the ingredient. a company can determine on their own that their ingredients are safe, generally recognized as safe. once paid do that, whether they have an expert panel of consultants that confirm that and say that they are safe, they can go to market immediately. they can also decide to go to the fda and submit the review to the fda and say we want you to review it and the fda like erin said, they do not affirm that, they send what is called a no questions letter. that means they are not disagreeing with the company's
determination that this is generally recognized as safe but the responsibility is still on the company to be responsible for the safety of that ingredient and for its use. host: before we get to calls, erin quinn this gras with system, who oversees that? is there any oversight over that system if the companies can just hire their own scientists? guest: in the case of companies who hire their own scientists to declare something as safe, if they do not notify the fda there is no real oversight by any regulators because that determination is private with the company. if they do notify the fda the fda does ask tough questions about those and there is a little bit of oversight but there is no formal approval. host: has congress had anything to say? guest: there is at least one legislator who expressed
frustration in a statement to us, basically saying that she is upset at the fda has not acted on recommendations that the government accountable the office -- government accountability office made five years ago in a report where they had knowledge and said that the fda is not doing enough to ensure the safety of the food supply. largely because a lot of safety determinations are being made without ever getting to the fda and the fda even knowing the ingredients exist. host: let's get the viewers involved in the program. chris young and erin quinn from the center for public integrity. cliff from maryland. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. this is really interesting to me. not only food but the drugs the fda fails to test adequately. i was unaware of this loophole
you are talking about but it makes sense to me. what i really want to talk about was a related subject, which was the human growth hormone that has been added to milk products in this country. there was a story on fox news sunday years ago there tried to be a story -- some years ago there tried to be a story. the reporters were forced to rewrite the story 80 times before they were fired. they sued fox news over their story about human growth hormone in milk causing cancer. they want to court and sued fox news. it should have been an open and shut case, they lost their case. here is the job dropper. the judge ruled that not only fox news but no network news company or corporation is obligated to tell the public the truth. have a good day. host: any thoughts? guest: what he is getting at,
people are really concerned nowadays about transparency. the issue with the gras system is important because consumers want to know what is in their food. a lot of people think that is relatively little to ask. you see this a lot with issues around the debate of people wanting to have labeling for genetically modified organisms. it is an issue that is basically across the country, people want to know what is and a lot of people expect that. host: a tweet to that effect, erin quinn. "we do not know what we eat, drink or brief." -- or briefreathe."
take us back to the young boy who bought a turkey burger at a basketball game in california. to the point of people knowing what is in their food, how could somebody like this find out what they are ingesting? sporting event, find out exactly what they are ingesting? guest: while all the ingredients must be on food labels, a lot of the ingredients are so new to the consumers, they are completely unfamiliar. they might not really relies what that ingredient could be action composed of. i believe that that was what the issue was in that case. guest: and the company denies the claims that the -- the family makes in their lawsuit that was filed. the company says that, you know, that their ingredient is safe. and that the fda, back in 2002, had essentially agreed to that. host: let's hear from john in north port, florida. a republican. caller: good morning.
my concerns are with the farmers -- a lot of the farmers i think to throughout the country, they are losing their farms because you know, with the natural gas industry, it is -- has really taken off today. some of the land is starting to get polluted. but my concern is that if the farmers keep losing their farms in the united states and we depend on other sources of food from other countries, i think that is my biggest worry. just want to know how do you feel if we have to depend on other countries like we depend on oil, what is our future for the food? that is my question to you. what direction are we going to go? and how can we stop this? host: thank you for calling john. erin quinn? guest: that is an interesting point. as we looked at a lot of the notifications that the companies have made to the fda about the ingredients that they have declared the safe and want to bring to market, we took a look
at all of the notifications that are available. and i goes back to 1998. we did see in our data that there are a lot more international companies that are getting involved in the market here, and bringing additives here for typically processed foods. they do have to go through the same exact processes as a domestic company but it is definitely something that we noticed. guest: and just to expand on that a little bit more, a lot of these companies that are coming up with these ingredients are from all over the world. so what these companies also -- these are -- we are trying to get an understanding of what these companies are. these are often the companies that are supplying ingredients to the major companies that are household names. like general mills, kellogg's. the companies that are extra coming up with these ingredients aren't as much of a household
name as the companies they are supplying them to. host: we have carol on the line from ohio. a democrat. hi, there. caller: yes, hello. my comment is -- i am a trout of the 1950's. i remember when food tasted like food. now you have food that is basically plastics and just all kinds of -- it is just awful. children of today don't even have a clue as to what food real food tastes like. and it is very upsetting because her have chemicals that in other countries, yet we put it in our bread and baked products. potassium bromine, you have hydrolyzed soy protein msg. a lot of people are concerned about msg, so they mask that as
soy protein. this is awful because the companies are profiting, and we are getting some of the worst things to put in our bodies that should be nutritious. what we need for a bodies to be healthy, yet people are so desensitized to the chemicals in the food. if you stop eating a certain food and then you begin to eat it again, you actually taste the chemicals want to have desensitized your body to the horrible ingredients that are in our food. host: thanks for calling, carol. guest: she mentioned the expansion of the number of ingredients in our food. and that is something that was brought to our attention because when this law was passed, regulating food additives, there were only 800 food additives that were added to the food supply. today, consumer groups and others estimate that there are more than 10,000 ingredients that are added.
so there has really been an expansion of processed foods lifestyle change, and so that's why these additives are making their way to the market. because they are typically found in the package goods. host: chris young, back to a tweet. how could anyone -- or how would anyone have known that this exact protein would react with a specific mold allergy? guest: so, the family believes in their lawsuit that it should of been labeled as mold. as a mold-based ingredient. something that says mold. but there was nothing on the package that said that. the company doesn't think that that was required. that they shouldn't have to do that, but the family, in the lawsuit, says they would expect that to be on there because of your son, like theirs does, has an allergy to mold, then you can be able to identify that as a potentially harmful. host: dana calling now.
hi, dana. caller: good morning, paula. and good morning to your guests. i haven't read the article yet but do the authors have a clue or any information about how many people have actually died or been injured from unknown food additives that have been put into the food supply? secondarily, how would we even know whether -- what is being added because it is quote unquote not being required to states? whether that is humming us at all because unless you are like the young man who died from the anaphylactic shock, most of it would probably be long-term effects. i will drop off line and listen to the answer. thank you. host: thanks. guest: he is absolutely right that a lot of the additives -- the concerns would probably be more with long-term things. however, he did bring up what
immediate effects they might be. and we did see that in the case of caffeinated alcoholic beverages. that was something that the fda expressed their concerns about as energy drink companies started to put a call in their beds rigid -- to put alcohol in their beverages. there were college students who drink too much of them and end up in hospitals. there was a kiss we read about where appointed and updike because of events that transpired after drinking those types of beverages. but he does bring up a good point, which is that the biggest concerns that critics have with the system are that these food additives could have long-term effects that we just don't know about because nobody can really track the data. to see how consumption of these things are affecting people. guest: nobody can ask a find out that one thing companies are supposed to do when they are coming out and making their
safety determinations if the commitment of that people having two ingredients. and when these companies are making these determinations in secret there is no way of being able to calculate the relative exposures. so let's take an example of -- imagine you are at your breakfast table. and you are -- a company has determined that a particular ingredient is safe for a certain dose to use in a muffin. and they did that determination and secret -- in secret and never told the fda. another company made a similar determination on the same ingredient for breakfast cereals. at a certain company did the same for the same ingredient in juices. each of those companies might have made that determination that these are safe for that specific use, that they determined, but they have no idea what these other companies are doing.
so even some of the industry consultants said, we do have concerns about that. the fact that we don't know what other companies are doing makes it hard for us to track this overtime. host: you have in your piece this section titled, it isn't the wild west. the fda has publicly acknowledged the shortcomings, you're right, but recently do not have the information developed for the safety of many of these chemicals. meanwhile, industry scientists and lawyers contend that safety concerns are overblown. and government oversight would cripple the depleted fda and stifle innovation. quote, it isn't the wild west out there. we have the safest food supply in the world, but it gets to the point about fda resources. remind us of how the fda is structured right now. how big is it? what can of resources when they have? guest: sure. the fda regulates 80% of the
nation's food supply. but they do have pretty tight resources right now, as has been told to us by consumer groups and even the fda itself. when the fda is deciding where to devote their resources, they are going to focus on more pressing issues like food borne illness or contaminants in food like a listeria outbreak. something that they have to deal with immediately. and things like this that are much more long-term problems sort of take a backseat to that because they are focused on what is happening now. host: so there is a tweet out there that says, how are you going to test every food? is it even reasonable to think that that could happen? guest: that is one argument that the industry makes in support of the way the system works right now. they basically say that the fda this not -- if -- if it was required that all these
companies go to the fda for a full review, we would have no new food additives. that basically the system would be stalled so much that we -- that food innovation would just not happen. we would be without a lot of these ingredients. a lot of critics of the system say, you know, why don't we completely ensure these ingredients are safe? and we really need all of these ingredients? host: a democrat from riverside california. hi, there. caller: hi, i wanted to bring up a few things. -- is in a lot of things. it is a preservative. it can cause cancer. and when it is mixed with citric acid, and a lot of sodas popular want, it can cause leukemia. and the phosphoric acid, it is like a negative. so it oil and high fructose corn
syrup, which was in a lot of things i haven't look at in my kitchen are on the top of the harmful foods. then i happened to get into some of my cosmetics. i found out that some of the ingredients in sunblock kenexa cause damage to your cells. -- can actually cause damage to your cells. body lotions and things like that all have chemicals that you absorb. and on the generic medications 80% of them don't have to be tested. if the original project -- the original project -- product doesn't have to be tested. one last thing the -- suicide. due to have any depressant -- somebody is being paid off obviously. host: there is a lot there from gloria. any response to what you heard?
guest: sure. there are advocacy groups that are working to promote right to know. the center for science and public interest to a good job of tracking what food additives they have concerns about and what products you can find them in. and there is a few substances that chris and i took a look at that these groups have pointed out are considered carcinogens that other government agencies like the nest new -- the national institute of health those do sometimes make it into our food. guest: and in interesting point about lawsuit. the one point that industry consultants we talked to said over and over again said, why would they add ingredients to our food if they knew they were unsafe? because these companies would open themselves up to a slew of
lawsuits. but the counter argument to that is that it is hard for people to be able to point to a specific ingredient and say this caused me harm and, therefore, i am going to sue. as you know and the viewers know, a lot of these ingredient labels have sometimes dozens of ingredients on them. to be able to point out a specific one is really hard, especially if these ingredients -- we don't even know about. host: an independent color named joe. joe, you are on with chris young and erin quinn. caller: hello? host: hi, joe. joe, are you there? caller: my question is -- with all these ingredients they are putting in here, then you come up with this graph, and the
government basically approves whatever they want to put in there. why do we even need the fda teco why don't we shut it down and save a couple hundred billion dollars? if the companies can do whatever they want to the food, we don't need the fda anymore. host: perspective from joe there and fda. guest: companies will say that they ensure the safety of their food and they are very careful about all their testing. they make sure they cover all their bases before they put something in the food. and that may be true. they may do all of that work but consumer groups and other critics of the system say, if there is no agency that is overseeing everything and can say for certain this is everything in our food, there is no way to track how humans are consuming that and what types of long-term effects there could be after people consume that over long periods of time. host: chris young, you have a section in the piece about trans fats.
guest: trans fats is an example of an ingredient that we have known -- that public health officials have known for a long time as being harmful. and causing a variety of health issues for people. obviously, trans fats have been used in processed foods for years now. and the fda has been aware of this for a long time, but it is only now considering acting and banning trans fats. we are taking it off of the so-called grass list, the generally recognized safe to list. the latest on that is that a couple of years ago, they made a tentative ruling that they were going to ban trans fats, or take it off the list. and now, the expectation is that this summer, that is when it might happen. host: erin quinn, let me ask you about this piece from the
center. food safety scientist have big ties to tobacco. guest: so, the scientists are typically the ones that are hired to be on the panel that these companies can be in order to declare something is safe. these panels are very important to the decisions on safety. they review all of the data and scientific studies that have to do with a new chemical's structure or how it is made up and what sort of affects or could have on the body. and what the consumption might be. and these panelists review the documents and then make a decision for the company to say, yes, we recognize this is safe. and what we found is that many of these scientists previously worked on similar things for tobacco companies, which also have additives in their products. so, many of these panelists say that the skills are a little bit transferable because there are
some additives that are similar, that are in your food and also in tobacco products. host: we will be here for about 10 or 15 more minutes. michael is going from redwood city, california. thanks for getting up early michael. hi, there. caller: good morning. i would just like to make a comment. you were discussing the fruits and vegetables issue. but also, not talking about -- i have been living in south san francisco, i don't know if i should mention the name. telik care -- e-house provider that oversees the care of people with a checkered -- people with psychiatric problems and drug problems. i had been on it for over --
well, many, many years. i have taken around 18 to 20 different drugs over time. i had to hearings done to the court -- two hearings done through the court. the previous one i had done by another organization, and wrote a letter to the courts stating that she felt i should have the right to decline any medication that i choose to abstain from. the court turned around and approved it. they turned around and they dropped -- they didn't even have the audacity to confront ", like it did with other judges through the years -- confront me in court, like it did with other
judges through the years. host: michael, a question for our guests? caller: -- cancer because of some drug, whether it is because of the smoking going on at the hotel, which now the city is trying to ban. and also, i don't know if it is related to the equipment that i work with at a pc shop years ago, making circuit boards. and i was exposed to a variety of things that psychiatrist during one interview ahead with him, he said, you know, this is something that you should be wearing masks with. host: thanks for calling, michael. is there anything that you want to respond to jack -- respond to? guest: i cannot respond to anything specifically with drugs or anything like that, but i want to go back to what erin was talking about with these panels.
if the fda isn't the agency or the regulators are the ones responsible for ensuring the safety of our food, then who is? we want to take a look at these expert panels. what we found is that it is often the same experts over and over again that of being hired by these companies or consulting firms that are hired by these companies. and the -- there is one scientist, in particular, who has said on a total of 156 of these expert panels over the last 17 years. that is 41% of the panels that have been convened over that time to review the safety. the concern that critics have with that is that if you are being hired over and over again by these companies or these consulting firms, and you rely on that as income, and you expect to be hired over and over again, that your judgment might
be skewed a bit. and there is nobody that we talked to that is disputing the qualifications of a lot of these scientists, these experts. these are toxicologists chemists, people with the qualifications to do so, but it is the idea of this conflict of interest that is a real concern. host: tony now. a democrat. hey, tony. caller: good morning, c-span. my question for the panel is this. do you think congress plays a part in not allotting enough money for the scientists and chemists to be placed in these companies that are dealing with our food? as far as making sure it is really safe for us to consume. and also, i would like to say, how does this tie into the health care system? is this why some of the people are sick in this country and can't get insurance and come up with all these different diseases and things of that type of nature?
i just don't understand why the government has money for everything else, but you have all of these companies out here just doing what they want. making any kind of food, putting it on the market. nobody is fact checking them or nothing. i think it is wrong. but then, we talk about obamacare or whatever, we wouldn't need obamacare who were eating healthy. so that is my comment. host: all right, tony. thank you for calling. guest: as many consumer advocates have pointed out to us, these types of food additives directly contribute to public health. but i wanted to go back to what he was talking about with, does the fda really have the authority or do they have to go back to congress to do more? and that is something that the government accountability office brought up in 2010, which was that they made recommendations to the fda and said, here is how
you can fix the system. and one of those was for the fda to mandate that these companies give them basic information on all the chemicals that they are adding to foods. and the fda said that they could not do that because their hands were tied by the law. they said if they made that mandate, they would be sued by companies because they just do not have that authority. guest: because there is nothing in the law that says it is mandatory -- that they are required to go to the fda for approval. host: thinking more about the broader question he had at the end there, what does this mean for the overall health care system? guest: we didn't really explore too much about how this kind of gets into the health-care care system, but, i mean, if we don't know the safety of what we are consuming, then sure, that could be an issue. host: erin quinn, you mentioned earlier in this segment about
the congresswoman of connecticut being active in this. anyone on the senate side who has the eye on this? guest: we have not found anyone specifically working on the system, but as this becomes more of an issue with a lot of the groups, and even some consultants in the system who say there can be some things ironed out, there may be some action in the future. host: we have a list of the from -- good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for having me. yes, i was going to ask erin to comment on the fast track bill in the senate yesterday that is going to affect the transpacific partnership trade agreement. not too many people, i think know that our food supply is exit going to be affected quite dramatically if this particular trade agreement, and its european cousin, is also ratified.
one of the things that i was aware of, and we have been doing conference calls with different organizations, organic consumer organizations, everyone involved. the anti-dmo movement. they are all aware that monsanto has a big, big role in negotiating this trade agreement. and there are issues of grazing issues of guys that want their cows feeding on, you know, emo corn or alfalfa -- gmo corn or alfalfa. europeans have managed to keep gm owes out -- gmo's outcome until now. we are going to have a real issue with the world food supply. the prime minister of japan is coming on the 29th two address congress. as we know, japan has some serious things that attract a workout, in terms of being able
to import food. what i would like to find out you know, have addressed a lot of problems here. i would like to know if there are any solutions you would recommend? we know the fda is underfunded just like the apa and others. -- dpa and others -- epa and others. what can we do to help folks like you and the regulatory agencies do their jobs when we are fighting this massive push from the corporate elite? host: thank you for calling. guest: so, the -- about getting the solutions to this. the fda said that they can't make this mandatory that companies go to them. that would be something that congress would have to take care of with legislation. but there are some recommendations that the government of -- government accountability office made that consumer groups want the fda to
act on itself. and one of those is to conduct random audits of safety determinations that are made by companies to make sure that, you know, making sure that they are indeed safe. and that would keep the industry on its toes to make sure that they are actually adding foods that are safe to the food supply. and there are some other american -- other recommendations to, and -- too and that would be to do a systematic review of these ingredients to make sure that everything that has been added is indeed safe. the last time that was done was back in the 1970's and the 1980's. the fda at the time, president nixon, or did the fda -- ordered the fda to do a review of all the generally recognized safe ingredients to make sure that they were safe. the fda convened in independent
group of experts -- an independent group of experts that spent 10 years going over and reviewing more than 400 ingredients to make sure that they were safe. host: michelle calling from ohio. a republican caller. michelle, you are last caller. caller: they have -- i would like to know what their opinion is? because i know what that is all about. if they watch -- the slaughterhouse -- the bleachers and the deodorizers, it smells like bad, musty meat. which is not good for you to eat, anyway. i don't know why they would put that pink slime in the ground meat. that is why i am staying away from this. because it is no good. i want to throw up when i smell it. host: thanks for calling michelle.
either of you want to speak to that issue? guest: well, this is not something that we explored specifically. it does not really stick to the issue that chris brought up before, which is that consumers are more often demanding that there is transparency with what is in the consumer products like food. and a lot of consumer groups are working on those types of issues. and they have expressed to us, many times, that the norm is going to become transparency. host: where is this entire issue going? guest: sure. just a couple of days ago, the center for science and public interest, a consumer group that has been advocating to improve the system, they filed comments with the fda, detailed comments, about 80 pages of comments saying that the system is illegal the way it functions right now. and that the fda needs to know what is being put in the food.
and they are advocating that the fda bolster its oversight of the system to makes that what we are eating is safe. host: chris young and erin quinn, both from the center for public integrity, here to talk about their story on the fda and are wood. you can read more at publicintegrity.org. thanks to both of you for joining us on this friday morning. guest: thanks for having us. host: we are about halfway through this friday edition of the "washington journal." when we come back, the white house put a focus on women this week. coming up next, will have a discussion on issues facing working women. we will be right back.
>> this weekend is full of live coverage on the c-span networks. with the l.a. festival of books on "booktv." on c-span, saturday morning at 10:00 eastern, live all day coverage of the new hampshire republican party first in the nation leadership summit. the goods included ted cruz, wisconsin governor scott walker, ohio governor scott casing, and kentucky senator rand paul. saturday at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span two, "booktv" is live from the university of southern california with the los angeles times festival of books. some of the authors who will hear from include best selling biographers got your, and a radio talkshow host. our live coverage of the l.a. times festival of books continue
sunday afternoon at 2:00, with panels on crime in u.s. history. and authors will be taking your phone calls throughout the day. and on c-span3, saturday morning at 8:45 eastern, an all-day event on the civil war. speakers include caroline jeni, james mcpherson. and sunday at 8:00 a.m. and again at 10:00 p.m. eastern, the 150th anniversary of president lincoln's assassination. recreations from ford's theater, and will take into our of the peterson house, where the president thy. -- died. >> at 825, she was one of the wealthiest widows in the colonies. entering the revolution, she was considered an enemy by the british. threatened to take her hostage. later, she would become our nation possible first first lady at age 57.
martha washington. this on a night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady. from martha washington to michelle obama, sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "american history tv." and as a covenant to the series, c-span's first book, "first ladies." providing lively stories of these fascinate women. it is now available as a hardcover or an e-book. through your favorite bookstore or your online bookseller. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have a roundtable this morning on the state of working women in the u.s. our guests are vicki shabo.
good morning. we also say hello to veronique de rugy. thank you for being with us, as well. when we had that big, broad topic, what is the most important issue of their right now? guest: well, i think actually the thing that i would like to start with, and to emphasize how good women have it up -- have it as opposed to the last 60 years. i think a lot of the topics we have on this issue tend to treat the problems as if we haven't made any progress. but we have. and quite spectacular ways. i think it is really worse -- worth pointing that women graduate at higher rates even than men. and i think there are women who enjoy a lot of flexibility with work. and to the extent that they face this issue, i honestly think it
is not so much about gender, so much as about the state of the economy. and a handful of issues that men face, like underemployment, a slow economic recovery, lower wages, and things like this. but i don't know it is quite specific to women, like the bigger issue that i see about the labor markets. host: and what do you see on their? guest: i think veronica is right, there has been incredible progress for women over the past 60 years. but i don't think we have come far. we just saw a report out this week showing the wage gap. does a woman who are working full-time, year-round. if we look at women of color the wage gap is far greater. $.64 for african-american women $.51 for hispanic women.
if you look at every occupation, every industry, by education level, veronica is completely right that women's opportunities have progressed, but the kind of policies that we need for women, and for men, the kinds of flexibility policies really haven't kept up. and still underneath it all there is still some discrimination. host: we put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for our viewers to weigh in on the state of women in the workforce. we have plenty of time here to talk things through, but why don't you follow up on some of the numbers that vicki shabo put up? 77%. the white house says 77% -- women make 77% of what their coworkers make. guest: i think it is an extremely misleading figure. even the washington --
"washington post" and others who have looked at it. and even when you economists and economic advisers -- they all acknowledge that the problem with that is that it tends to say that women who work in the same position, the same number of hours, are paid must -- much less. but what economists have found is that when you control for the number of hours worked, when you control for education, when you control for whether a woman works and has children and has taken a lot of time off, the gap almost disappears. life choices, if you will, made by men and women -- the labor
department's survey shows that it is not exactly the same thing. women work 8.1 hours when their work full-time. that is an average. and man, 7.75 hours. so, we have to be careful not to say that there is a wide discrimination between women and men doing exactly the same thing, working the same hours having the same level of experiences. host: vicki shabo? guest: i am very glad that you brought all of that up. we talk about $.78, and i think the president's figure is from last year. that is for women, on average who are working full-time year-round. brock at is not looking at many women in the exact same jobs. that is not looking at the exact same number of hours.
full-time for women is maybe a couple of hours less per week than men. but what we see is there are all these factors at play. the reason i bring up wage policies discrimination, workplace policies like flexible schedules, lack of access to paid medical leave, lack of access to paid six days, is that -- is because that is how the women are able to exist in a workplace where the rules are really meant to be rules. but we are in a time, like the secretary likes to say, of modern families. -- and that is true according to -- that 7% weight cap starts out a year out of college for college educated women and college educated men. and that is controlling for virtually every factor. host: sorry to cut you off there. will is calling from akron ohio.
well, you are our first call. go ahead, please. caller: ok, good morning, everyone. i want to direct this question more so to vicki. i heard a statistic, 77%. when it -- what i am looking to find out is you get the statistics early on with african-american women and latina women. i assume that asian men probably make equal or more than white men on average full-time workers, where to african-american men and latino men matchup statistically? because i think that if you look at them individually or separately, you will see that the numbers -- because i think that is probably there are probably more white men soaring above everybody else. could you help out -- do you know those statistics or where i
could find the statistics at? guest: you are absolutely right, will, and i'm so glad you asked the question. when we are using comparators, we are using white men. you are right, there is a wage gap, as well, between white men and african american men and latino men. host: do you want to add to that? guest: yes, that is one of the things that is pointed out very often. indeed, it compares things that honestly shouldn't be compared. if you really want to compare more equally, and that was a point that several made, is that that number for black women and hispanics compared with white men, which is a weird choice because right there, you created distortion that is bigger than it should be. that being said, it doesn't mean that there aren't issues, but a lot of them aren't the product of discrimination.
and there are things we need to address because there are concerns about lower wages. since the recovery, there is a lot of evidence that a lot of middle-class wages have been turned into low class wages. these are issues we need to take into consideration. host: we have elizabeth on the line from santa rosa california. thank you for calling, elizabeth. she is a democrat. good morning. caller: yeah, i wonder why -- why some people think that -- that just because a man is married and he has kids, he needs a bigger wage than a woman. guest: if i can just start you have probably other insights but i don't think that anyone thinks that. i think that what the data shows is that one of the reasons why men may make more money than women is because of life
choices. a lot of the -- they are overly represented in professions that are high risk. and very intense in hours. as opposed to women. it is true that, overwhelmingly, women are still the ones who take care of their children. they are the ones taking maternity leave, they are the ones requiring flexibility or needing flexibility. so, i don't think it is that we think that men should have more -- higher wages, i think it is a function of the choices, the professional choices that are made. host: vicki shabo, how about those choices? guest: so, i think choices is a little bit of a red herring in the debate. i think to the extent that choices are at a, it has a lot to do with factors -- these factors that veronica are talking about. in that women are still the primary caregivers.
just quickly on this one point about the fatherhood bonus and the motherhood penalty, it is very well documented in literature comparing full-time workers to full-time workers. on the dangerous occupations, i have heard this argument a lot. i went and looked at some of those dangerous occupations, and the wage gap persists in each one of those. even women that are working in those occupations are still putting less than men. host: a little bit of perspective, this is on the democratic side. two thirds of families rely on a mother's income. they generally contributed about 40% of the household income. and their earnings account for more than half of household income among 38% of married couples. jerome from south carolina. hey, jerome. jerome, are you there? caller: i would just like to say
to the lady -- something about how the, you know, the lasix use has improved for women. you could say the same thing about race riots; however, the news proves that different. women are far more -- even today -- far less likely to have any say over their body. they are losing their rights daily. the powershift is apparent to anybody who has paid attention that women are beginning to step up and say, have had enough and we are doing this for others. and that is what i would like to say. women are still behind. we are so far behind that i think sometimes my dogs are smarter than we are. peace. host: thanks for calling. guest: i mean, if women think that they are behind -- don't get me wrong, there are women who face a lot of difficulty.
it is hard to juggle work and families. there is no doubt about this. i think that women have proven over the generations that they are very capable of stepping up for themselves and demanded what they need and what they want. and changing the culture. it is really -- we need to come and reminisce in the 1950's and the 1970's who actually really brought up these issues of discrimination. and we are going to change things and we have made tremendous progress. i'm in, culture shift an economic shift. women are doing so much better. and again, doesn't mean it's perfect? does it mean we can just go home and not care about it and never talk about it? absolutely not. but try to pretend that women today are still in a state of
complete oppression, where their rights are curtailed in the u.s. i think is an overstatement. host: the pay issue, just for a couple of more minutes. vicki shabo, remind us of the history of the equal pay act. when did it come about? and what has been the result in your view? guest: the equal pay act was passed in 1963. john kennedy signed it. it basically said that women should be paid equally to men based on skills, responsibilities, and experience. that was an incredible first up. it was the first in a line of civil rights laws that came about the 1970's that did start that process. so, it was in -- an historic first up, but it has not gone far enough. and there are a couple of issues still. one is that it is pretty easy for employers still to discriminate and pay women and men different amounts based on a
pretty loose definition of business necessity. the second issue is that the remedies under the act aren't as good as under some of the later civil rights laws, like title vii. so, we need to improve those. we also need to create policies where women and nobody, actually, for the gentleman's point, where evil are not retaliated against for simply sharing their pay information. often, we hear about and see people like -- who found out they were being paid less than their male counterparts, but they didn't have the right to talk about it in the workplace. something like 50% of people face retaliation for talking about their wages. host: bringing it more to present day, there is a paycheck fairness act that is out there in congress right now. some of the details, which you have touched on a little bit connected to job performance not to jenna. this act prohibits retaliation
by employees for saying -- sharing salary information. it establishes negotiation skills training programs. where is that legislation right now in congress? guest: i don't think it is really going anywhere. maybe you can speak more to this actually. because i haven't followed the step-by-step. host: what do you think about the idea of updating the older law with something new? guest: here's the thing, again, i think we are fighting a battle using misguided data. we have established that women tend to work fewer hours. yeah women working exactly the same hours, the same amount of time, doing exactly the same thing should be paid the same. they shouldn't be discriminated but the best way we are going to be serving women is to have a flexible labor market, a growing economy where employers have to compete for employees.
i am very concerned actually about having mandated regulations that may backfire against women because they may make them more expensive, and hence, less desirable. i think we have to be very careful. all of these rigidities that we include in the labor market actually means it is going to be -- it is going to be harder to employ women. there are trade-offs with everything. host: let me bring alan into the program from clearwater, florida. good morning to you. caller: hi, how are you today? host: doing well. how are you? caller: pretty good. what i would like to talk about, and i don't hear very often when they talk about daycare, i have a family member and he is autistic. he is 27 years old. what they give him is rested --
he gets about 15 hours a week ok, where he can go out with a trained person out into society. now, the rest of the time, he is at home or with the other family member going to the store and everything. my thing is -- one week is 168 hours. how would you like to spend 153 hours with your loved one? [laughter] they do not talk about anything about increasing the time. as a matter of fact, they keep decreasing it. it was ok when he was in school because she worked with the school system and had the same days off. once he graduated, that was it. and he had companionship and he had rested -- and they said you
can work with the -- but the caretaker had to be, you know, you couldn't do it separated. you could go out or you had to stay at home, depending on the respit. i don't know if it was the state or the feds said ok, we will combine them. you can use that time. so it was 30 hours total. but they never changed the hours. they kept it at 15. so, i am just wondering, how are they -- they are doing daycare trying to get daycare so people can go out to work. my family member would love to work. host: thank you, ellen. guest: i think ellen, you bring
up really great points about the ranges of protections and services that we need for ulcerative americans. i think one of -- we need for all americans. i think one of the things that we need in this country, in terms of the way the caregivers are paid, but also the need for family and medical need -- leave that addresses not only new parents, where he spent a lot of time talking about mothers and fathers and the workforce, but also people who need time off -- the ability to take time to deal with those urgent iterations that come up with family members. allen brought up in artistic -- ellen brought up an autistic adult child but when a parent gets sick or has a crisis and needs care, women, in particular, are being forced to leave work for because they need to take care of those people to
the tune of $324,000 in lost retirement and savings. so we really need to do a better job in recognizing the changing demographics around work, around care. an update of policy so that women and men can deal with life's events. and return to the workforce. host: as we touch on a trout care issue, i want to show a bit of president obama from charlotte, north carolina this week. he talked about his desire to trouble the child care tax credit. [video clip] president obama: which would translate to potentially an additional $900 a year for childcare. that is going to make a big difference in a lot of families. so, at the federal level at least, this should be one of our top budget priorities. and, you know, it is in everybody's interest to make sure that our kids, and i see
hours because -- i say hours -- i say ours because even if you are single, even if your kids are grown, even if your kids are like mine on the way to college soon and think i am boring and don't want to hang out with the as much as they used to that your kid is important to me, too. and that is not -- not a charity. that is because your child -- as a son or a daughter? in eight-year-old son. you know, your son, if he is doing well, that means he is paying taxes, that means he is paying -- contribute into society, he is staying out of trouble. that is a good investment for me. host: the president from charlotte earlier this week. what do you make of what he had to say? guest: so, i have some reluctance with cutting the tax code more than it is.
but this is a better solution than mandating child care benefits in the workplace because that could really have bigger implications and negative consequences for women. that being said, i will say -- we only talked about expanding childcare, tax credits, and giving more to women, but we are not actually addressing some real issues that women and married women with children, in particular, face with the tax code. for instant, there is a serious marriage tax penalty that needs to be addressed. second earners, 72% of the time they are women, especially when you have children, if they make significantly less than their husband -- because they have to file jointly or separately, as opposed to singles. the last dollar you earn of your
smaller weight is taxed at the highest tax rates of your husband. so that means if you are a woman who wants to work, and if you don't make that much money, you have a tremendous disincentive to work because the tax rates you will face is quite significant, compared to a single woman who will face -- these have implications and if we could address this, it could leave more cash with women and their families to take care of childcare without causing a further burden. host: vicki shabo? guest: taxes are not my area of expertise, but families have real expenses. families have to struggle to meet -- make and meet. -- make ends meet. when they have a parent who
needs care, when they come of themselves, are ill. we have to do a better job in this country off of getting a policy to reflect the very real needs are workers have. we need to find ways for them to do both. host: did you want to add something to echo guest: i just wanted to add one thing. the other thing we are not addressing is that if we had more immigration in this country, it would help women. because -- and it would help, obviously, the woman who lives abroad and wants to come and live and work in the united dates. but one of the things that the economic literature shows is that women especially low -- low income women benefit tremendously from immigration because that makes available more childcare options, more housework options. another thing is lifting a lot of the regulations that get in the way of more people, more
women or men, for that matter, entering the childcare business. right now, there is a lot of occupational licensing. you have to have -- and requirements that -- increase the barrier democratic caller. married. caller: good morning. i just want to ask a question about something, so far i have not heard anyone address. that is, i would like to know how pay disparity impacts women after retirement. in other words, if the taxpayer supplementing women in retirement didn't earn as much as men -- i never hear anybody adjusting that particular problem. thank you. host: vicki shabo?
guest: that is a fantastic question. i agree with you, it is a piece of the debate that is probably not talked about enough. the pay gap, the disparities that women are facing over a lifetime to hundreds of thousands -- adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. it means that women are more dependent on men, on social security, but because they are taking time out of the workforce, their benefits may not be as high. it is why we need policies that we know help to keep women stay connected to the workforce. we know when newmont's take paper leave, they are more likely to come back to work, earn higher wages over time, and come back to the same employer would save them and training costs. and it allows for women and men
to save for retirement and be paying into the tax system, so we all have more to benefit. win-win. host: before we go back to calls, i want to give your chance, vicki shabo, to respond to the last point on immigration. guest: one of the critical things we need to do, if we are going to create more eldercare jobs where there are often low-paying jobs with few protections. we can't just create a series of new workers who do not have wages or benefits for protection, because then we end up with more reliant on the social safety net and more and equality rather than less. we need to raise wages for
everyone and protections to allow for people to be responsible to take individual responsibility. we need to create a society that is working for everybody and not just a few. host: john is calling from poughkeepsie, new york. caller: iwatch these lawyers organizations that are greatly funded. when they come up with their conclusions, they seem like pre-drawn conclusions, it is easy to take numbers and twist and turn them, but there has been discrepancy and pay and our society for years. it is not something that was planned. to think the you will going correct all the inequalities in our society, it is never going to happen. to say that men -- to pit men and women against one another, i don't understand. it seems like there is anger and hatred. that is the bottom line here.
it doesn't seem like you're trying to solve the problem and make society any better, it seems like oh, we are getting this grenade is a against. -- discriminated against. what about discrimination and sports? have you looked at who is getting more money? do you see that the wnba, woman's association, makes less money than men. do you really want to pick everyone against each other? or do you think there is a better solution? somehow, this is not a conspiracy. i think -- if i have a business and i want to hire somebody, i don't say, i will hire a man because i think he can do a better job. i may decide that will make a do a better job, but it is my decision and not yours. host: thank you for calling. guest: i agree with you.
i think there's a lot of risk in pitting men against women or perpetrating the idea that women are highly discriminated against. again, a lot of evidence. are there people willing to discriminate? yes there are, but that is far from being the majority. i think the solution for all of us is that we need a dynamic economy and we have to be extremely careful and warned people against mandated rage restriction, mandated increase in wages. that will slow down the economy. we tend to forget in this whole debate that businesses in order to be able to hire women or men for that matter, and men and women are in this together most of the time.
in order to be able to hire people, they need to sell their stocks and be in an environment that allows businesses to prosper. creating more barriers in the marketplace is not a solution. i agree with vicki, women need more flexibility. they need more flexibility because of life choices that they make and because they are primarily, and by choice, responsible -- they want to raise their children. the best way to allow them to come in and out of the market without too much of structure and is by having a flexible labor market and not by implementing very rigid barriers that backfire and hurt the most. guest: a couple of things there. one of the great myths, i think, is that greater regulation leads to lower wages do we have a
number of experiments. there have been a number of cities and states putting in paid sick days. we know in places like san francisco, the state of connecticut, here in washington dc seattle, those laws have had no negative impact on job growth or creation. in fact, industries that have been most successful, labor and hospitality, those have increased. labor and hospitality jobs in connecticut have increased at a higher rate than they did before. one of the best ways to stimulate the economy is to provide people the wages and stability that they need. just a quick antidote -- i was at the white house yesterday for a "champions of change" event that the president held. there was a fantastic woman that
had a business in iowa. she talked about how she took over her father's business and realize that women on the payroll were being paid less then men and to the step to equalize pay rates, which allow for people working for her to buy houses, pay off their debt, pay for childcare. it has had a stimulating effect in the community. the mandates are not having negative implications. guest: i would like to dispute that the data on the mandate on the labor force -- i think work on these issues by an m.i.t. professor, a respected economist, his work has shown that it has impacted starting wages of women.
that being said, i think it is wonderful if businesses, who find that there is some discrepancy, that they could be serving better, that they could benefit by giving much more to their women employees because some of them are much better helping them will also benefit male employees. i fully support -- i just think it is wonderful to hear stories like this that disprove the idea that business owners are horrible people who would do anything to their employees and order to make a buck. i think it is a sign of the great country we live in. host: i want to get jake in from hampton, georgia. a republican. caller: good morning. i feel like everybody should
have an equal opportunity to do a job. i just wanted to get y'all to weigh in on the rise of part-time jobs instead of full-time jobs and if that has any effect on the bigger picture of things, like the economy. just why did your opinion on that. guest: a great question. i think one of the ways that we see in this economy that there are a lot of people working part-time. a lot of people working multiple part-time jobs to support their families. pay rates for part-time workers, benefits for part-time workers the ability to take a sick day for part-time workers, the ability to have a reliable schedule -- these are all huge problems facing men and women.
it is something we really need to address, and part of the reason why we need to update our policy. guest: i think the last six years, our recovery -- that has been one of the problems. people who want to work full-time take a lower paid job at part-time. the way you adjust this is with the economy. i think we have to be careful about how we get about this. they are good ways and bad ways. a lot of government intervention tends to actually slow the economy. that being said, i will say, i was reading something which was interesting, specifically about women. if you ask working moms if they would like to work less, three quarters of working mom say they would like to work less than they do now, even though 50% of
working moms actually work. there is a lot of evidence. we need to be conscious that a lot of women would and if it from a more flexible workplace, for sure, but this cannot be done by imposing policies that will make their cost more expensive. there's a lot of women who would rather have different lifestyles than they do now. back in only be addressed by a much more flexible labor market. host: on to charles in idaho. caller: boy veronica and the other lady there are very intelligent and what they are saying. i appreciate what they are doing. first of all, i am an american
saying that, i'm getting so tired of aristocrats standing around in their offices doing absolutely nothing, not going down to talk to their employees and asked them what the problem is on their home front. they sit there and manage by just looking at the books. the women in america have ran the country, they run the family, they help with everything that america has ever done, and for them to sit there in their aristocratic offices and not even express concern for the women or even the men -- i don't care if a woman is a coal miner, works in army, whatever she does. i say kudos to you too for saying what you are saying. good luck, and i hope as americans, we can get together and get these aristocrats down into the trenches and to change
his workforce for the betterment of america. host: comments from charles in idaho. let's go to florida where danielle is waiting to join in. caller: good morning. my, is trying to move beyond directing attention of women's workplace being easier or decisions, or blaming that blaming the pay discrepancy on that, and rather, think about the more individual level. a lot of experimental data in the gender literature suggests that if you examine people in management positions, men with hypothetical profiles of potential employers, and you change nothing between them, the qualifications are identical
the only thing the difference is -- host: you are breaking up. i think we can do ju get the gist. guest: i don't know the result of the data. guest: i think she is talking about john and jennifer study where a study was done where the resume was the same, except for the name. jennifer was offered about $11,000 less. it goes to the discrimination point. i agree with veronica that you cannot tag everything on the wage gap. about 12% of the wage gap can be explained through dimms from a nation -- discrimination.
that, more men are leading companies. we need a better pipeline so that women get into an advance a good job spirit to do that, we need to update the infrastructure that allows for women to do that. one of the important things -- we have talked a little better about men versus women, i think our best policies in this country are gender-neutral. there is a family leave act that has been used thousands of times across the country to allow people take time off work. it is gender-neutral. it has changed the culture and workplaces. we have gone from a society where 21% had access to unpaid leave and now 90% of people have access to unpaid leave. a study done in california which was the first to put paid unpaid leave in place --
shows that moms are able to go back to work sooner, earned higher wages. we know from states as well that when parents take parental leave, they are more engaged. the more we can break down the barriers, the better off we will all be. guest: gender-neutral policies are always better. i fully agree. i will say, the desire to have more women in higher jobs is a great one. i'm not worried about it. women are going to college and graduating at a higher rate than men. they will be better educated and that is the factor that has a significant impact on the career path that women have. that being said, it's important to note that there have been a
lot of studies, and i just one recently from the institute for family and work, that show that when women are surveyed, only 70% of women say that they want more responsibility. it's not every woman wanting a high position. i think we need to have a workplace environment where those who wanted can aspire and deliver, but again, i think you can have this conversation in 20 years, and the landscape of america will look radically different for a lot of these reasons. i think we also have to be very careful. again, how we go about fulfilling this aspiration. for example, work being done at your receive shock -- the diversity of chicago looks at
the number of women on boards. you have more women on boards, based on a study that was done in europe. but then, it has had no other impact. germany has done this too, by the way. the pay gap, however you want to measure, has not changed. again, a pay gap -- we have to implement the right type of policy to be sure that we identified properly the problem. i appreciate you saying that you are not saying a majority of the job discrepancy is due to discrimination because the way it is talked most of time, it makes it sound that is all
discrimination. it is not the case. i think we would benefit from having a real honest conversation about what is the progress that we still need to achieve. host: sun city, arizona. republican. caller: thank you very much. good morning, c-span. what a great discussion we have going this morning. one of the places that i found information on this, and for vicki sitting there, the starry eyed liberal. she has these delusions of grandeur that the government will take care of these problems for businesses. if you just leave the businesses alone to take care of themselves, they will do it. an employer would have to be extremely full dish to hire women -- fulloolish to hire
women at a better price than men or the other way around because they would lose employees like that. when thomas sole looked at this, there was maybe a 5% difference between men and women. i'm 70 years old, i have been watching these numbers for the last 30 years, a lot of it on c-span. is absolutely incredible that vicki consider their and come up with the same numbers that they had 25 years ago, and if the numbers are true, it means the government has been totally an effective at doing anything to solve this. guest: first of all, there has been progress. the wage gap has closed some. in 1963, when the equal pay act was implemented, the wage gap was $.58, and now it is $.78.
if you take the 5% the you are talking about, that is a real wage gap. we have to be real and not say that 5% is it really real. that is real for women and their families trying to make ends meet. guest: 5% is interesting. i just read a study that found when you control for all the factors we have talked about, it is five cents. you're right, that does matter and that is what we should be focusing on and say, why is it? from what i have seen, women don't negotiate enough. that is true. when you look right after college, that is something that could explain. what do we do about this?
i tend to think that it is not the role of the government. we could all do education with our children. let's talk about the real issue that still exist. host: one or two more calls here. tommy from tennessee. caller: good morning. it is obvious that money is being used to solve this problem . my suggestion is, let's make motherhood the highest-paid job in this country. that way, we eliminate 50%-20% of your crissy and put money in the hands of the people who make this country work, and that is women. motherhood is the backbone of this country. until we address this issue, we will not be better off. host: rob from new york city. caller: good morning. with all due respect
for monica -- veronique, you sound like you are in a bit of a bubble with your studies and university chatter. i have worked in a lot of offices since before and after college graduation in the 70's up until today. i can tell you, practically in every situation women are getting ripped off further wages -- for their wages. they get unequal pay for equal work. often in offices that i have been in, they almost always tell you not to discuss our economic keep it hush-hush, keep it to yourself. in almost every office, they tell you not to talk about salaries. if they find out that you do talk about salaries, they come down on you. the game is that women are not
gain paid on the level that men get paid. vicki, you sound your full of common sense, i think you are right on. it has nothing to do with democratic or republican. i hope you can both recommend two or three books each other and that you will read them both. host: thank you for calling. time for a final thought from each guest. guest: one concluding thought. one of the great victories, or signs of progress, over the last year has been a discussion in congress and its state legislators about the different kinds of policies that working families need. for too long, that was to polarize of a discussion. i think one of the great signs of progress is that legislators on both sides of the aisle, both here and across the country, are
coming up with solutions and agreeing that there is a problem. i think that is a sign of progress. in the act specifically, it has a tremendous amount of support in congress. we are seeing proposals on both sides, and both have in common -- items in common. i agree with the caller that we have to get out of the partisan divide and find solutions for the problems we all know we have. guest: i think talking to each other is always an important step. i think using data that is misleading is problematic and actually creating barriers in our ability to talk to each other. the thing that i guess i would say in conclusion is i think you
and i are sign of progress. there are still a lot of challenges but i think a lot of these challenges have very little to do with gender issue and again, have a lot to do with a slow-growing economy, issues of poverty, issues of underemployment, and when we address these, we will address problems for women and their families, and also for men. i think we will see that more women can work to their full potential and we will see that gap, hopefully, go away. host: our guests have been thrown he gig -- for roenick tiveronique de guy and vicki shabo. we have 30 minutes left in this
friday edition of "washington journal." when we come back, we will talk about something we spoke about earlier and this program. a tweet from harry reid saying, i want everyone to know that loretta lynch's nomination will not remain in purgatory forever. he is threatening to force a vote on the senate floor as early as next week. this nomination has been tied up by some other items, according to the republican side. here are the numbers to call. we want to get your reaction to senator reed's comments that he is threatening to force a vote on the threat lynch nomination for attorney general. be right back.
>> this weekend, the c-span city store has partnered with comcast to learn about the history and literary life of saint augustine, florida. >> they may or may not have been searching for the fountain of a turtle use. many people said that he was out for additional property for the king of spain, which is very decidedly true. we do know that he came ashore after searching for good harbor took on water and wood. this area presents one of the few freshwater springs in the area. it is also the location of the 1565 first settlement of saint augustine, 42 years before the settlement of jamestown was founded and 50 years before the pilgrims landed on clinics
abroad -- plymouth rock. >> flagler was a man who was very little known outside of florida. he was one of the wealthiest men in america. he had essentially been a cofounder of standard oil company with john d rockefeller. he was a man who always wanted to undertake some great enterprise. as it turned out, florida with it. he realized that he needed to own the railroad between jacksonville and saint augustine to ensure that guests could get to his hotel conveniently. clearly, the dream was beginning to grow. he was a man who had big dreams, he was a visionary. >> watch all of our events from say i saint augustine.
saturday on c-span 2. "washington journal" continues. host: here is one of the headlines following carrie reads -- harry reid's tweet yesterday on the nomination of florida bench. here is the senate leader in his own words on msnbc. [video clip] senator reid: this is a woman who no one can question her poise, her educational background, her experience. in fact, we had republicans saying what a good woman she was. suddenly, they are not allowing her to have a vote. they are basing it on such
shallow evidence. we are here trying to have a woman confirmed as attorney general, and they are off on some abortion issue. i want to say this to all the reviewers -- all of your viewers, we have put up with this for far too long. we need to have a flow on her soon, created by mitch mcconnell, or i will create one. i can still do that. i know parliamentary procedure around here. we will put up with is a little longer, but not much. rachel: you have a way to force a vote. senator reid: absolutely. we can force a vote. host: rachel maddow pressed him a little bit. we want to get your thoughts on the loader lynch nomination which has not had a vote yet in the senate. harry reid threatening to force a vote. we will get to that in just a
couple of minutes. phone numbers, we will put on the bottom of the screen, but we want to jump over to a story that we talked about earlier in the program, that thrusts itself on front pages this morning. it is about fasttrack and pacific trade. doug palmer is joining us. all of a sudden, we woke up this morning, and this trade pact is all over the pages. a deal has been reached a certain elements of the leadership on either side. what exactly has taken place? what is this trade item about? guest: it may seem sudden to much of the public, boxing this has been coming up for quite a wild. what happened yesterday is the leaders of the financial committee, senator hatch and sender widen -- senator wyden reach an agreement on fasttrack.
basically, what that would do is allow president obama to submit trade agreements to congress forestry up and down vote without amendments. the most immediate reason that the white house once that legislation is because it is trying to conclude a big trade deal in the asia-pacific. this called transpacific partnership. and includes united states, the anon. the pact is controversial. business groups love it. labor groups, environmental's, and some ngos hate it. the legislation that was passed yesterday, if adopted, with ed approval for tpp. the battle over fasttrack is, in essence, an early square mesh in the fight over the transpacific
partnership. host: we read that they're not a lot of democratic voters out this on this. how does the president aligned himself with republicans, and how much democratic support will he need to get this through? guest: he will need at least 60 votes in the senate. people say that senate usually has an easier time of passing trade legislation than the house. there are a number of centers who have a track record of supporting trade agreements. you would expect that they would be able to get enough to reach 60, to get it passed. there will be a possibility of a filibuster, so they need the 60 vote for threshold. the more republicans that fall away, the more democrats they need to get to the 60 vote threshold. in the house, it just needs to pass with the civil majority.
republicans have an ample majority and could theoretically pass it on their own, but again, there is some uncertainty about -- people don't respect every republican to vote for this bill, the question is how many will vote against and how many democrats you need to get over the top. obviously, the white house with like as many democrats as possible, but realistically, you are talking about a range of 10 to 40, maybe higher. when you get to the high end, that is where people are skeptical of the numbers. host: for those who want this legislation passed what does that mean for us, for me, you our viewers? what would we see? what would we know and feel from the stucco guest:is?
guest: i don't know if you would see some at impact in your everyday life. people who are from rust belt states say that nafta has had a devastating effect on the community, leading to lost manufacturing jobs. that's why the union groups are fighting this so hard. they feel like it would be more of the same. on the other side of it, theoretically, we should be able to -- the u.s. should be able to host exports because we would be reducing tariffs that u.s. imports plays on foreign goods. those would go to zero. then mr. shah argues that that would create more jobs in the united states. to the degree that the united states has bears, they are relatively low. those would also be eliminated under the pact.
not everyone, but that could reduce the prices of goods coming into the united states. and generally it is a strategic matter, kind of an economic alliance with key trading partners. demonstration argues that is the united states doesn't read the rules of trade and asia-pacific region then china will write the rules. they are saying that it's in our interest to be here and make sure that american companies can prosper in this region because that is good for the united states as a whole. host: we will see how the votes lineup in congress. doug palmer, thanks for taking time to talk to us this morning. guest: no problem. thank you. host: on to the question about senator reid forcing a vote on attorney general nominee loretta lynch. there she is on the screen. we will keep the numbers on the screen.
here is "the hill" one more time -- reid thousand to force a vote on lynch. what do you think? caller: i don't think harry reid should threatens a forceful on anything. there is regular order in the house and senate to bring things to a vote. whether loretta lynch has been waiting six months or not, it is besides the point. democrats have held up so many people, and just decided to this engage and withdraw their names from being considered. the man has very little moral value. he can sit there and make that conviction about mitt romney during the last election cycle and then his only response was that he didn't win, did he?
there is a lot to be desired with that man. host: let's hear from earl. democrat from englewood, new jersey. caller: good morning. a comment -- harry reid wanting to force a vote i think is besides the point. loretta lynch is overly qualified to be attorney general. the fact that it has taken her nomination, it has been held up longer than the previous seven attorney general's combinedd begs the question, why? you could point to several things. the fact that they don't want to make or continue a president the first african-american female attorney general. they did not even hold up eric
holder's nomination for someone who is for lack of a better word, hate. and now they are holding of hers for 160 days. it doesn't make sense. there's no good reason for it. host: we go to al now. caller: one of the previous callers to my points i will move on to another one. the reason, i believe, that the vill loretta lynch hasn't been brought up for nomination is because if you look at her back out, she went to college with eric holder's wife. is this lady going to be put into that seat to continue who hid buries its world -- barry santoro.
host: we get the point. michael. caller: i just want to say if mr. reid is so gung ho of getting misled in there, she will get in there. the place is not going to fall apart for her waiting period i just want to say about the 350 bills that were on reids desk all that time, a lot had to do with employment, getting people employed in this country. if he had been so gung ho about doing that, the country would be a lot better off right now. ms. lynch, she will get in there. take a little vacation and look at washington dc for a little while. that's all. host: larry and indiana. caller: this is just another extension of the obstructionism
of the republicans, they had when they read in the minority. i feel they need to get over themselves, allow her to come up for vote. do their job because they are not doing their job. thank you. host: more of your calls in a minute. "washington times" just below the fold -- which nomination fight turns nasty. turning up the heat, even when gop leaders said that they were close to a resolution. white house press secretary josh earnest said the delay and confirming ms. lynch is evidence of the difficulty that the president faces in working with congress. he accused six term senator chuck grassley of having misled
the white house over ms. lynch. the sad part, i think is that senator grassley particularly in his home state of iowa, has cultivated a reputation as somebody who is true to his word. i think the only conclusion i can draw is that mr. grassley has been in washington for too long. our next caller from tennessee. caller: reid needs to get over himself. he lost. he lost twice. in 2012 until the 14th 14. the democrats need to move on. republicans have both the houses now. let them do what they need to do, which i think is better than what we have had in the past. as far as silly clinton being the first lady president, people need to get over that. look, we voted the first black president in, and even though i voted him in let's over that too because look at the shape the world is in. host: a little pushback from senator grassley's office.
mr. grassley -- his spokeswoman, beth levine, said the white house was rewriting history. she said democrats held 55 seats at the time mr. holder announced his intent to step down. let's go to florida. sherry. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i don't think that anybody that obama tersely handpicks is going to win the nomination. obama himself has proven, we cannot trust him. he is a liar, fraud, and trader. look at what he has gotten into in the rest of the world. along with harry reid, he is also unknown l a known liar.
look at all the muslim brotherhood people he has an all the different organizations as it is. that is my opinion, by know a lot of people agree with me. we can't trust obama and certainly don't want to put our trust in anybody that he handpicks. host: here is what jeb bush has to say. he calls on republicans to approve cartilage. this is a story in "political" this morning. he says, i think presidents have the right to take their team according to reports at the "politics and pie" form in new hampshire. the former florida governor said that the longer it takes to confirm lynch, the longer holder stays. jack calling now from new jersey. democratic caller. caller: i'm all for harry reid
forcing the vote. when i think back over the past eight or nine years, how the republicans have been stopping everything they possibly could and holding back the investment -- advancement, in might opinion. we could be a lot further if the republicans were blocking everything. it is time that we stand up. host: john in chapel hill, north carolina. caller: i wrote mitch mcconnell yesterday. i am from north carolina. we know the village for a well. -- loretta lynch very well. her reputation is stellar. there is no reason for republicans to be doing what they are doing. i'm 72 years old. i could come up with a lot of reasons, having been raised here north carolina, but i won't go
there because you will call it the race card. racism is not the card. anyway, it is ridiculous what is going on. we will see what happens. good luck to harry reid. god bless president obama. host: thanks for calling. from "politico" -- forcing a procedural vote, even if it failed, what amount to a major front to mcconnell. the two have been frequently parliamentary combatants over the years, punctuated by re ids unilateral change to the senate. taylor, michigan, you are on the
air. caller: i just why did say the whole reason they don't want to bring her up for a vote is because she deemed property forfeiture without a conviction and her stance on immigration, she is for it. everyone is trying to make it male, female race. what she clearly stands for is everything we voted for him election to fight against. i think it's great that they are not bringing her up for a vote. i don't think she deserves it. host: nancy. lagrange, georgia. independent. what do you think? caller: i think miss lynch should be confirmed immediately. i am an independent from the circuit where there thurgood marshall was from. this human trafficking bill is a total nightmare.
people do not realize how super dangerous this is. this takes children and puts them in dhs facilities with no judge, just a privately funded for profit organization to do forced abortions in america. i am pur pro-choice, but not for children as if they were cap. host: irene. what would you like to say? caller: i say good for harry reid. republicans have to decide if they love america more or they hate obama. thank you for taking my call. host: let's keep taking calls. richard and little rock, arkansas. republican. caller: the president, no matter which president is, they have the right to put people in positions, it's fine. some of your callers today
once again, everybody is attacking republicans. just so everybody remembers, the first two years the president was in office, all three branches were controlled by pelosi reid, and the present. only now do the republicans have majority. you can blame everything -- can't blame everything on the republicans. thanks a lot. host: here's a tweet from james if harry reid wants control of the nomination, he should win the senate back, otherwise, shut up. joe. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: i would like to say that the republicans holding up the nomination of lynch is absurd. getting to the previous calling you can tell him that even though they have control of both houses, how many filibusters were recorded by republicans that blocked everything they
were trying to do. one other point. i don't know if you know this or not, but back in 2009, jeb bush claim to be hispanic on the voter registration card in miami, florida. thank you. host: bob in north carolina. caller: good morning. on the loretta lynch nomination if you understand the republican philosophy, which is dividing conquer, they will not approve loretta lynch because just about everybody wants are approved. now you take the trade bill fast tracking, and you realize that workers do not want this trade bill to pass. this is a way for them to divide the work is from obama, so they will go ahead and vote for that. that is pretty much the key to what they are doing. if you understand that, you've got it pretty well answered. host: thank you.
from "new york times" -- senate moves to revisit trafficking bill as clashes intensify over lynch nomination. we thought it might have moved on to completion yesterday, but it did not. it hit a snag when democrats say they came aware of a provision that would allow funds to go into up find to pay for abortions. harry reid escalated fights over the lynch nomination, if mitch mcconnell did not schedule one soon. that led to the clip on the rachel maddow program. a lot coming together on the hill yesterday. we will see how plays out next week. mark is calling from lexington, kentucky. democratic caller. caller: thanks for having me.
i appreciate this opportunity to address the issue at hand. host: go right ahead. what would you like to say? caller: first of all, i think we can look at what has happened during the presidency of barack obama, even prior to him being and not graded. -- inaugurated. republicans have sought to undermine and discredit humiliate, and just destroyed his opportunity to build this country. looking at the fact that he won the election twice with unprecedented numbers gave voice to the sentiment of the american people that they wanted change. unfortunately, i heard another color say that he had refused to walk across the aisle. he extended the olive branch on a number of occasions. when you keep getting pie thrown
in your face, why should you do that? what we're seeing now is that the republicans again are using i think, childish tactics to hold up a qualified nominee. the american people need to say something about that. this partisanship has been bitter, divisive, and is destroying our country. i appreciate the opportunity to address this. host: here is the front page of "union leader" in new hampshire -- republicans kick off primary season. we will be there live today and tomorrow. joining us by phone is trent spiner the executive editor of "union leader? ." what are we looking forward to hearing? host: this is a busy day for us. we have 19 candidates between today and tomorrow who will be
in new hampshire. this is the biggest cattle call as we call them, in the election. 30 much every candidate will be here and they get half an hour to go before new hampshire activists and republicans. for many, this will be the first time that voters will get to see the candidates. host: there is a line in your piece saying the first goal for republicans speaking at the summit is be memorable. what do you think that means today and tomorrow? guest: right. how do you do that as a candidate? there are 80 other people talking, theoretically. how do use handout -- you stand out? that is the key, to be memorable. figure out the way to get your message across and get voters to remember what you stand for. host: one of the candidates is
marco rubio. we understand you just got out of a meeting with him. guest: i am out of breath. i literally just ran back to do this interview. he is an interesting guy. he has an interesting back story. i tried to see -- i had a question on how he differs from jeb bush. he said he has a long way to go to introduce himself to voters. host: what are voters in new hampshire looking for heading into 2016? guest: i think that is what every candidate is try to figure out. what are the issues that people really care about right now. there's a long time -- we have all summer and winter to go. whatever people are talking about now may not be the issue that they will vote on in february. here's what people are talking about so far. entitlement reform.
chris christie was out here and laid out a huge plan. marco rubio was talking about that today. lindsey graham was talking about that. he's making not a centerpiece of his campaign. entitlement reform is big. safety and security. i think a lot of republicans are grappling with how to make sure the nation is safe. and, social issues. abortion has come up several times. it's really too soon to tell what the big issues will be. those are certainly some things that people are talking about so far. host: as we look forward to covering republicans today and tomorrow, we learned that hillary clinton will be visiting new hampshire next week. is that correct? where will she be? what will she be doing? guest: she will be here on monday and tuesday. this is her first are two new hampshire since she announced that she is running for president. new hampshire is coming right
after her trip to iowa. we don't know specifically where she will be yet, but campaign aides have said you can look for a similar trip to what she had in iowa. low-key events. at something she will have roundtables with students and teachers, small business folds. they say the thrust of her trip will be talking about the economy. we are excited about that. we will deftly cover it, and are happy to have her. host: trent spiner is executive editor of new hampshire's "union leader." appreciate it. key times, going back to the republican event are 12:15 p.m. today and 10:15 a.m. tomorrow. rick perry, jeb bush -- we will
be back with lindsey graham, mike huckabee. they will all be there. we will be live both days. thank you for joining us today. we hope you join us tomorrow and every day for another edition of "washington journal." ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> about two hours from now, the new hampshire republican party will kick off it is calling the first in the nation leadership summit. former texas governor rick perry, new jersey governor chris